>If two people are linked so completely that they are
> aware of each others thoughts and impressions, are they
> really 'different' people? How do you measure where one
> 'soul' ends and another begins? It may be that what Cayce was
> hinting at with his assertion of multiple 'incarnations' for
> some people was the Buddhist doctrine of 'no soul' (Anatta).
> In Buddhist thought there are no 'IN-divisibles' but only
> streams of consciousness. So it might be that Cayce was
> saying it was possible in earlier times for living persons to
> be linked -- precisely because the sense of 'self' wasn't so
> strong, but now our mode of living has become so material
> that we can only live in one 'stream' of awareness at a time.
> As you say, "We really are all One" -- so why couldn't some
> people in the past have been able to live that way?

I agree with you. The definition of love, as taught to me, is losing one's self in another. No boundaries...
But this is not the same as one soul incarnating--splitting--into two physical bodies. We are all unique. We have our own unique history of millions of lifetimes, personal karma, etc. This "I" does not split into differnt physical bodies. It may merge later--while on the physical plane or after death, but when incarnating, it is only that one personality that takes the birth. If there had been a merging previously, that merging will likely occur again. We will find that soul, be drawn to it. But we will not be born merged with it. I speak from my own experience with this process.
David